AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD

NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, l<'IRST MIDDLE INITIAL)

GRADE

AMN

AFSN/SSAN
·----------------
'
'

YICS

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL

MEMBER SITTING

HON

GEN	UOTHC

OTHER

DENY

X+*
X+* X+*

SSllES

A92.35 A92.21 A93.0t

INDEX NUMBER	A67.10

XI *
x	+*

I	ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD
2	APPLTC ATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCIIARGE
3	LETTER OF NOTIFICA TfON
4		BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIM E OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE
TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE

IUcARING  DATE	CASE  NllMBER

18 May 2006

FD-2006-00053

Case heard at Washington, D.C.

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's request.

+ Change RE Code
* Change Reason and Authority

TO:

SAf/MRBR
550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742

SECRETARY OF TIIE AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL  COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, JRD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00	(EF-V2)	Previous edition will be used

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE	CASE NUMBER

FD-2006-00053	

GENERAL:	The  applicant  appeals  for  upgrade  of  discharge  to  honorabl e, to  change  the  reason  and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code.

The  applicant  appeared  and  testified  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB),  without  counsel,  at Andrews AFB on 1 8 May 2006.

The following additional exhibits were submitted to the DRB:
Exhibit #5:  Character reference from MsL -:_	K:\unt)
Exhibit #6:  Character reference from Mr L	HJ?mployer)
Exhibit #7: Character reference from Mr---------------------- j(Former Employer)

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge.

FINDINGS:	Upgrade  of  discharge,  change  of  reason  and  authority   for  discharge,   and  change  of reenlistment code are denied.

The Board  finds that  neither  the  evidence  of record  nor  that  provided  by  the  applicant  substantiates  an inequity or i mpropriety that would justify a change of discharge.

ISSUE:

Issue 1. The applicant cited his desire to enlist with the United States Army.  The DRB noted the applicant's desire but concluded that his desire standing alone was not a matter of inequity or impropriety which would warrant an upgrade.

Issue 2.  Although not explicitly stated, the applicant suggested that his misconduct was a result of his youth and immaturity.  The records indicated the applicant received an Article 15 for failure to obey an order by driving a motor vehicle without a license; derelict in the performance of duty in that he negligently failed to stay awake at work; failed to show up for End of Course Exam in proper uniform; and failed to go to appointed place of duty.  He was punished with a suspended reduction to airman, forfeiture of $289.00 pay, and restriction to the limits of Mildenhall for 14 days.  He received a vacation for being derelict in the performance of duty by using his Bank of America government travel card for other than travel purposes; and for writing bad checks.  As a result, he was reduced to airman.  His misconduct was further documented by four Letters of Repri mand for failure to comply with uniform standards; found sleeping on duty (two separate occasions); failure to go, drivi ng without a valid drivers license; and dereliction of duty.  He received a Letter of Admonishment for showing disrespect to an NCO.  He also received five Records of Individual Counseling for failure to comply with standards; reporting late for duty; sleeping on duty; violation of a Technical Order; and failure to obey lawful order.  The DRB opined that through these administrative actions, the applicant had ample opportunities to change his negative behavior.  The Board concluded the misconduct was a significant departure from conduct expected of all military members.  The characterization of the discharge received by the applicant was found to be appropriate.

Issue 3.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was doing well and has a good job.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant appropriately characterized his term of service.	

CONCLUSIONS: The Discharge Review Board concludes that the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was within the discretion of the discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process.

In view of the foregoing findings the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed.

Attachment: Examiner's Brief